Friday, April 19, 2013

On being judgmental

Are Christians judgmental? To answer that question we have to ask what it is to be judgmental. If someone were to say "homosexual activity is a sin, because the Bible condemns it," is that person therefore being judgmental? Now, I am not here raising the question of whether a Christian must say this sort of thing, and certainly there is a considerable theological debate on the matter. But is it wrong to say something like this because it's judgmental? Does our disapproval of conduct on moral grounds constitute being judgmental? Is it judgmental to say that people who raise their child to believe a religion are abusing them also judgmental?

This blog post discusses that question.

56 comments:

im-skeptical said...

Being judgmental is in the eye of the beholder. If you think god it telling you what's right and wrong, it's not judgmental to say it - it's God's judgment, not yours. Others might think we all make our own judgments about right and wrong, and then some of us choose to try to impose those views on others, or at least to condemn behavior they don't like.

Papalinton said...

No more or less than anyone else.

Rather it is the basis of that judgement, the so-called claim of objective morals that underpin the judgement, founded as they are in the supernatural realm, that is both problematic and of questionable value, particularly when one remembers WLC defending God's genocidal slaughter of the Amalekites for no other reason other than on the basis of the Divine Command theory. HERE is a report in the Guardian newspaper of the UK in May 2012 of the worrying issue of Christian justification. "The story of Saul and the Amalekites has been used to justify genocide throughout the ages."

In part the report records:

"The CEF has been teaching the story of the Amalekites at least since 1973. In its earlier curriculum materials, CEF was euphemistic about the bloodshed, saying simply that "the Amalekites were completely defeated." In the most recent version of the curriculum, however, the group is quite eager to drive the message home to its elementary school students. The first thing the curriculum makes clear is that if God gives instructions to kill a group of people, you must kill every last one:
"You are to go and completely destroy the Amalekites (AM-uh-leck-ites) – people, animals, every living thing. Nothing shall be left."
"That was pretty clear, wasn't it?" the manual tells the teachers to say to the kids.
Even more important, the Good News Club wants the children to know, the Amalakites were targeted for destruction on account of their religion, or lack of it."


So as all people ought be rightly concerned, there is a very worrying trend in the practice of Christianity within contemporary society.

Doug Benscoter said...

Any moral acumen can be considered judgmental. To take an extreme example: "rape is wrong," is to make a moral judgment. It also happens to be the correct moral judgment.

Jesus says in Matt. 7:1-2. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."

Of course, if we continue reading, we find that Jesus isn't talking about moral judgments per se, but about hypocrisy (Matt. 7:3-5): "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

If Christians are considered judgmental, then so is everyone else, making the term vacuous.

im-skeptical said...

Christians do not have a monopoly on being judgmental, but religious influence clearly plays in a strong role when it comes to issues of morality. If you believe your moral comes from God, you are less likely to be forgiving or understanding of others who don't share the same moral values. What grounds can there be for debate or compromise when God himself is the arbiter? So go ahead and murder that abortion provider, or detonate a bomb in the middle of a crowd if infidels. God is on your side.

Doug Benscoter said...

im-skeptical, you're referring to people who belong on the fringe of Christianity. In fact, "fringe" may be a vast understatement. Now, when it comes to the ability to forgive, that too is part of the divine law. While it's true that conservative Christians condemn certain behaviors, we're equally admonished to love and forgive. Some just happen to do so better than others.

im-skeptical said...

Doug,

That's right, I recognize that those views are extreme. I also recognize that it's a matter of degree. For a great many religious people, (not only Christians) there is an attitude of righteousness, or holier-than-thou. The common theme is that they all get their sense of moral superiority from God.

Doug Benscoter said...

Thank you for the clarification. I do think this is not so much a Christian/religious problem as it is a human problem. All of us, regardless of which faith or non-faith we ascribe to, often think we know best and that others are inferior. As long as we make an attempt to understand where our counterparts are coming from intellectually, it becomes much easier to exemplify humility.

im-skeptical said...

I agree. I think it's worth noting that humanity shares broad common notions of morality, but there are obviously many differences in the particulars of what we believe. It is precisely those differences that show us the subjectivity of morality. I can't rightly say my perspective is better than others', nor should they.

Mike Darus said...

"Judgmental" is a derogatory term implying excess. The synonyms "judicious" or "discerning" are virtues rather than vices. the tendency is to criticize a position by labeling the position with a derogatory term or even to stereotype a whole group of people with the term.

You ask, "But is it wrong to say something like this because it is judgmental." The question already assumes that the position is overly critical. You may as well say, "Is it wrong to say something wrong,"

To say that homosexual behavior is wrong is a judgment. It is only judgmental to those who disagree with the position.

If you say it is wrong for someone to conclude that homosexual behavior is a moral sin, you will likely be considered judgmental by those who disagree and judicious by those who agree.

Papalinton said...

Doug
"Now, when it comes to the ability to forgive, that too is part of the divine law. While it's true that conservative Christians condemn certain behaviors, we're equally admonished to love and forgive. Some just happen to do so better than others."

This is the intractable and problematic nature of Christianity. There is no evidence of any form of positive statistical blip that demonstrates Christians who believe they follow the central tenets of Christianity, that are guided by its moral, ethical and social teachings, are more moral than any other sector of humanity. There are many good things done in the name of Christianity, but equally there is evidence of many things that sensible reasoned people consider atrocious behaviour perpetrated under the very same banner. The CEF example I referred to in an earlier comment is just one example of the malignant nature of Christian thought. [Which I note not one Christian has sought to defend what is happening in public schools right under our noses this very day. And this is not at the 'extreme' edges of Christian practice.]

Doug, your last-stand resort to quoting the bible can only be construed an admission of failure in responding to the argument. And the way you have used the two quotes from Matthew, as substantiating proofs for your statement: "If Christians are considered judgmental, then so is everyone else, making the term vacuous" has nothing to do with conflating Jesus's message to include "everyone else". In its correct and proper apologetical interpretation it is a direct call to Christians alone to refrain from judging others, from judgmental behaviour and hypocrisy. Your use of the sayings is symptomatic of the form of misconstrual and contortion the Bible is well adapted for, to aid the pious with the judgmental surety of their own position to wield such scattergun indiscrimination.

Your last-stand resort to quoting the Bible is also little more than an appeal to a higher authority, as a justification for your position. You can appreciate that such an appeal to a higher authority is wholly irrelevant and meaningless to those of us who reject its undeserved and unwarranted authority. Morris R Cohen, former professor of Philosophy and Law at City College of New York and University of Chicago, so astutely observed:

"If religion cannot restrain evil, it cannot claim effective power for good"

At bottom, when Christianity eventually fades away, as have innumerable other religious belief systems [history tells us that], the community will not be compromised one jot for its loss. Indeed, to use a favourite claim of WLC, the lessons of Europe are a 'multiply-attested' proof that societies can live well and happily without religion in the public square. Indeed they thrive without it, apart from the malignancy of Islam fowling its nest.

So, if anything, Christianity is the element that seems largely vacuous.

Doug Benscoter said...

im-skeptical, I think you're conflating moral epistemology with moral ontology. I agree that there are some differences in our moral judgments (epistemology), but that doesn't mean neither are correct (ontology). Truth is independent of whether individuals recognize it or not.

Doug Benscoter said...

Papalinton, unless you can stay on topic and keep your posts relatively concise, I won't be responding to you any further. Be well.

Ilíon said...

"Papalinton, unless you can stay on topic and keep your posts relatively concise, I won't be responding to you any further."

Problem. Solution. 1 1/2 easy steps.

im-skeptical said...

Doug,

What point is there in speaking of moral ontology if nobody can know what this truth is (assuming there is one)? We all have our ideas or judgments, and that is what serves as our best estimation of the truth. Beyond that, there's no source, no definitive reference to tell us what that truth is. Obviously, the bible won't do, because it contains so much that isn't accepted in our modern society. Should we listen to "authority figures" - the priest, the mullah? One thing I know, no institution like the church can tell me what's right.

Ilíon said...

Mike Darius: ""Judgmental" is a derogatory term implying excess. The synonyms "judicious" or "discerning" are virtues rather than vices. the tendency is to criticize a position by labeling the position with a derogatory term or even to stereotype a whole group of people with the term. ..."

Is it *ever* the case that a judgment is denegrated -- and hand-waved away -- as "judgmental" by any persons other than those who wish to overthrow the old common-place judgments ... without ever actually presenting a rational case as to why any of those old judgments were mis-judged?

Meanwhile, those very same persons have a whole suite of judgments, frequently irrational and\or destructive (both to individuals and to societies), that they intend to see, one way or another, imposed and enforced.

Papalinton said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Papalinton said...

Doug
'Papalinton, unless you can stay on topic and keep your posts relatively concise, I won't be responding to you any further. Be well."

Thanks for the kind solicitude. I too wish you well.
But to the topic, how is quoting the Bible deemed not off-topic? And yet my response is deemed off-topic. Double standards applying?
If the criterion for eliciting a reply from you is predicated on length then you seem clearly not interested in pursuing the truth, or fact, or evidence. Rather it seems to be about soundbites, no?
My response is somewhat detailed because there were a number of assumptions you make which were largely conjecture at best and plainly tendentious.

However, it is your prerogative to promulgate half-truths and falsities, and find authoritative support for them in the Bible. And your comment will be assessed accordingly. But please don't misconstrue them as God-sent facts.
Still you and other Christians on this site have persistently shied away from responding to the real-time real-life examples and reports that I have brought to readers' attention. these are not some peripheral stirrings at the margins of society or at the extremist end of Christian practice. This is mainstream.

Or are you and others here playing a game of silence in the hopes it all this bad Christian stuff will all just simply go away? Religion is what religion does.

Doug Benscoter said...

in-skepical, don't you agree that there's our perception of truth, and then there's the truth in and of itself? Now, most of us can have some certainty (moral epistemology) that it is morally wrong to torture children, or to rape and murder, and so forth. However, there are also "hard issues" where our moral epistemology occasionally falls short. Nevertheless, these differences of opinion don't at all imply that a certain moral obligation is subjective. It only means that our knowledge about it is limited.

im-skeptical said...

If a truth can't in principal be discovered, I can't say that it exists. We're not talking about a physical entity that can be seen or measured. Morality is a conception. I understand that people feel strongly that there must be absolute truth in moral matters, but if my conception is not the same as yours, where is this truth to be found? What reason do you have to say that it exists?

Ilíon said...

I'm becoming indistinguishable from Papalinton (not that there was ever much difference): "If a truth can't in principal be discovered, I can't say that it exists ..."

Translation: If I can deny a truth that you've discovered, then that 'truth' isn't discoverable, and I can say that it isn't really a truth.

But, of course, any man -- being an agent, being an immaterial mind -- is free to choose to deny anything.

Ilíon said...

VR: "To answer that question we have to ask what it is to be judgmental."

Has anyone yet managed to ask, much less answer, that question?

And, related, if 'judgmentalism' were defined, will anyone ask, much less answer, the further qustion, "On what grounds is 'judgmentalism' morally bad?"

Doug Benscoter said...

im-skeptical, there are all kinds of things we cannot discover. That doesn't make them any less real. I don't know what exists vast light years away, and right now I have no way of knowing. Nevertheless, there's still a truth about it.

im-skeptical said...

Doug,

I agree about things that we haven't discovered because we haven't been in a position to discover them. Such would be the case with distant parts of the universe, or perhaps the stuff of dark matter. Those things are in principle discoverable. A moral absolute is different because it can never be discovered. At best it could be inferred, but given the differences between people, times, and cultures, even that is doubtful. Some undoubtedly think they know it, but you'll never get full agreement, or corroboration from an accepted standard. So the question once again is: how can you be sure such a thing exists?

Hal said...

Doug,
"im-skeptical, there are all kinds of things we cannot discover. That doesn't make them any less real."

How would one discover a moral absolute?
Are you speaking metaphorically here?

You seem to be treating a moral absolute as if it is an object like an undiscovered planet.

Doug Benscoter said...

im-skeptical and Hal,

Both of you appear to be working under the presupposition that in order for something to be known, it must be discoverable by the physical senses. As philosophers have come to realize for decades now, that's a self-defeating presupposition.

We don't need universal agreement (epistemology) about moral absolutes in order for moral absolutes to exist (metaphysics). We know there are moral absolutes because we perceive them with the mind. Any argument against the objectivity of morality can equally be used to doubt that there is an external world. If you accept that there is an external world based on your perceptions, then it's special pleading to reject perceived objective moral obligations.

im-skeptical said...

" If you accept that there is an external world based on your perceptions, then it's special pleading to reject perceived objective moral obligations."

I disagree with that. When we perceive the external world, there is general agreement about the particulars of what we perceive. We can see things and measure them. We can use instruments that verify what our eyes tell us. Such is not the case with objective morality. No instrument can see it. Different people perceive it in very different ways, and it is recognized (at least by some) as a construct of the mind. Not surprising, then, that different minds construct it differently. Where is the objective aspect of it?

Doug Benscoter said...

How do you know you're not a brain in a vat, controlled by a mad scientist? You see, the instruments you mention for sense-perception can also be doubted. In any case, why do you conclude there's an advantage in possessing such instruments? Some of the most certain truths we know are purely mental, e.g. "I think, therefore I am," "2+2=4," etc.

The fact that there's general agreement can also be doubted.

im-skeptical said...

"Some of the most certain truths we know are purely mental"

The fact that they have certainty is because they enjoy general agreement. You might have convinced yourself of some 'truth', but if nobody agrees, it's not very certain, and it definitely isn't objective.

grodrigues said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Doug Benscoter said...

"I think, therefore I am" doesn't need any general agreement. Moreover, why think general agreement ought to be a criterion for justified belief?

B. Prokop said...

im-skeptical needs to watch the SF movie Dark Star, and pay special attention to the ending, where Lt. Doolittle attempts to educate the bomb in phenominology.

B. Prokop said...

Pinback: All right, bomb. Prepare to receive new orders.
Bomb#20: You are false data.
Pinback: Hmmm?
Bomb #20: Therefore I shall ignore you.
Pinback: Hello... bomb?
Bomb #20: False data can act only as a distraction. Therefore, I shall refuse to perceive.
Pinback: Hey, bomb?
Bomb #20: The only thing that exists is myself.
Pinback: Snap out of it, bomb.

im-skeptical said...

" Moreover, why think general agreement ought to be a criterion for justified belief?"

In some cases, I think it matters. If an idea has solid logical proof, then people will agree that it's true. If we're talking about something that is in fact objective, then people will agree. If we're talking about something that is a construct of your mind, and it's you're the only one who believes it, that fact must cast doubt on its truth, no matter how convinced you are.

B. Prokop said...

"general agreement ... I think it matters"

Then would you agree that the fact that an overwhelming percentage of humanity throughout history has professed a belief in God matters?

im-skeptical said...

Bob, you aren't following my argument. I didn't say, and I would never say that general agreement constitutes proof. I didn't day that lack of general agreement constitutes disproof. I said that lack of agreement should cast doubt on your level of certainty. Nothing more.

B. Prokop said...

I didn't say it was proof, I asked whether it mattered.

im-skeptical said...

Yes, I have to take that into account when I assess my own beliefs. I don't accept them uncritically, as most theists throughout history have done. I don't base them on some vague emotional appeal. I need to have good reason, and it certainly helps that there are many others who share that reasoning. I'm not just some irrational lone-wolf who has these bizarre notions.

Ilíon said...

Well, it's time to make my weekly migration to North Canton ... which means that if I post anything before the weekend, it will tend to be a 'snipe'.

Doug Benscoter said...

im-skeptical, I want to ask you this question again because it went unanswered before (not with any malice, of course): if you can doubt the beliefs produced by your mind, can't you also doubt the beliefs that the general populace accepts? What if there aren't any other people? Remember the brain in a vat example?

Finally, don't you think "I think, therefore I am" is more certain than the New York Giants won the last Superbowl?

im-skeptical said...

Doug,

I'm not trying to dispute well-accepted logical truisms. I do think that all of our beliefs are subject to doubt. I have heard the argument made that if materialism is true, we can't trust the validity of our own rational thinking. That is something I absolutely agree with, but I would hasten to add that it's true whether or not materialism is true. The fact is people believe all kinds of different things, theists and non-theists alike. All those things are not true. So can we trust what our logic tells us? (Lest the theist smugly proclaims "I can", remember that theists hold many divergent beliefs between them.)

The fact that we believe so many different things, all based on 'irrefutable' logic, our application of logic seems to lack finality in determining the truth. Note that I'm taking an unbiased stance here.

How do we know what is true? I think the best way is to get additional corroboration for what we believe, the more the better. We can't rely on logic alone. Am I a brain in a vat? My logic tell me no, but am I certain? I do know that it's not only my senses that experience the external world - there is plenty of additional information available to me that tends to confirm what I believe - that there is a real world outside my brain.

Other beliefs are more difficult to confirm in an empirical way. Then we may need to look to the ideas of others for confirmation. I don't claim that it would prove things, but at least I could have the comfort of knowing that my own ideas are not so outrageous that nobody else shares them. That would certainly be a red flag. Again, this should not be seen as the basis for believing something, but as a way to help confirm a belief, especially if those shared beliefs are well-founded.

What I don't trust so much are emotions or feelings to justify my beliefs. That is the basis for a great many beliefs that are clearly false. This is actually something that most people agree with, except when it comes to their own emotionally-based beliefs.

Have I addressed the questions?

Papalinton said...

Doug
'Finally, don't you think "I think, therefore I am" is more certain than the New York Giants won the last Superbowl?"

Yes, but to whom? Descartes truism is not an objective proof of the existence of anything or anyone else. Can the person with multiple personalities [of which there are countless psychiatric cases] be assured and know which one is the real 'them'? The evidence suggests: Hardly. The fact of innumerable clinical examples of multiple personality traits is a clear objective indicator that whatever the mind is, of which each person normally would have but one, but by no means exclusively, the mind is indeed an integral operant constituent of the physical body. Just as evolutionary genetics can generate extra fingers or limbs, or additional rows of teeth, or no ears, or generate separate brains/minds but share a single body, or more rarely, one brain/mind sharing two conjoined but distinct bodies, is pretty near damned concrete evidence that the mind is as much a reality of physical constraints as the materialism of the body.

However, there is one thing I can take from Descartes "I think, therefore I am" truism:

"I think, therefore God isn't."

Hal said...

Doug,
"If you accept that there is an external world based on your perceptions, then it's special pleading to reject perceived objective moral obligations."

Perceiving something with the senses is not the same as perceiving something with the mind alone.

If there are moral absolutes they are not like objects that we can perceive with our senses. Just as numbers and ideas that we think about are not objects like those we perceive with our senses.

By the way, I am not claiming that there are no moral absolutes, but based on what you have written, I suspect we would have quite a different understanding of what it means for something to be a moral absolute if it did exist.

Doug Benscoter said...

So it's three against one now! :D No worries.

im-skeptical, what other data do you have in support of an external world other than your perception? As far as additional corroboration goes, if you're just a brain in a vat, then there's not guarantee that that any such corroboration exists. We have no way of proving that anyone other than ourselves exist.

For the record, I don't rely upon emotionally-based beliefs, either. That's why I start from a position of skepticism and deduce beliefs that are certain.

Doug Benscoter said...

Papalinton, multiple personalities doesn't undermine Descartes' cogito ergo sum. Whichever personality happens to be dominant at the time, there is no dominant personality unless there is a mind that possesses it.

"I think, therefore God isn't"? Considering that God is being itself subsisting, the existence of anything at all necessitates God's existence.

Doug Benscoter said...

Hal, of course the two have differences. Nevertheless, their similarities are that the skepticism of one implies the skepticism of the other. It doesn't matter if one is perceived with the mind and the other with the senses.

Finally, sense-perception does not have a monopoly on objective knowledge. After all, the very claim that things can only be objectively known through sense-perception cannot itself be demonstrated though sense-perception. Verificationism, scientism, and similar isms are all self-defeating, which is why the vast majority of epistemologists reject such presuppositions.

im-skeptical said...

Doug,

I'm talking about empirical evidence, which is abundant. I understand that it all comes to me through my senses, and in that respect, there remains some small room for doubt. But I'm not smart enough to invent the whole world and everything in it, especially since there are people out there who are way smarter than me. I place the odds at 'low'.

im-skeptical said...

"God is being itself subsisting"

That's one of the axioms of Thomisitc logic. It's an axiom because it can't be proved logically, but serves as a basis for everything that follows. It's not a truism, because it's not self-evident, and many reasonable people don't buy it. It's just the kool-aid that Thomists drink to justify their belief in the supernatural and all kinds of things. So you buy into the axioms of Thomistic theism, and you are 'justified' in believing whatever logically flows from them. what you don't have is empirical evidence to back up those beliefs.

Papalinton said...

Doug
"Considering that God is being itself subsisting, the existence of anything at all necessitates God's existence."

This statement is now universally characterized within philosophy as a 'deepity'.
A deepity is something that sounds profound but intellectually hollow.

See HERE. "The term refers to a statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another. Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings; one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true."[Wiki}

A deepity was originally coined by philosopher Daniel Dennett.


Hal said...

Doug,
" Nevertheless, their similarities are that the skepticism of one implies the skepticism of the other. It doesn't matter if one is perceived with the mind and the other with the senses."

I don't see that.
Even if you claim you are a skeptic regarding empirical evidence you still have to act as if it were true. After all, you are using your senses to input your responses and reading the replies on your monitor. So it is hard for me to take that skeptical claim seriously.

But someone can say they perceive Zeus in their mind and he instructed her to tell others that they should worship him. I can not only be skeptical regarding that claim I can act in accordance with that skepticism by not worshiping him. Unless of course, a dark cloud formed over my house and out of that cloud came the booming voice of Zeus followed by some mighty powerful lightning.:-)

Papalinton said...

Doug
Under intense query, whatever your philosophical stance might have been, latterly your comments have been reduced to Christian apologetical platitudes.

Equally, to blithely suggest that one afflicted with multiple personalities, your statement, "Whichever personality happens to be dominant at the time, ...." is perhaps a quite thoughtless, uncaring and off-hand remark about those that suffer the debilitating condition.

Both Hal and I-M have picked up on your descent into theology as a substitutionary stand-in for philosophy. The recall of the 'god is being itself' is the option of last resort.

Ilíon said...

Hal: "Perceiving something with the senses is not the same as perceiving something with the mind alone."

Indeed. For "perceiving something with the mind alone" is more certain -- on top of which, no one can "perceive something with the senses" without having some prior mental framework to provide the context for understanding it. As philosophers and scientists -- in contrast to 'Science!' fetishists -- put it, "There is no observation without a theory."

B. Prokop said...

Allow me to relate a personal anecdote here, which I think is pertinent.

A few years ago, I walked into a room in which a TV was on. I looked at the screen and for many long seconds all I could see were random colors that made up no picture. Then all of a sudden, my brain processed the unexpected image it was seeing, and the picture in a flash became clear - it was a bright yellow research submarine hanging from a crane being moved across the interior of a huge building.

The complete lack of context and expectations when I entered the room accounted for my brain taking so long to understand what my eyes were seeing. So Ilion is quite right on this one - without context, there is no perception.

Hal said...

Doug,
"After all, the very claim that things can only be objectively known through sense-perception cannot itself be demonstrated though sense-perception. Verificationism, scientism, and similar isms are all self-defeating, which is why the vast majority of epistemologists reject such presuppositions."

Just want to clarify that I am in agreement with this statement.

I believe what disagreements we have are due to different conception of the mind and of perception.

Hal said...

Bob,
"The complete lack of context and expectations when I entered the room accounted for my brain taking so long to understand what my eyes were seeing. So Ilion is quite right on this one - without context, there is no perception."

I've never claimed otherwise. Our perception of reality is not only mind-dependent, it is also language-dependent.

I'm merely trying to point out that perceiving a mental object is not the same thing as perceiving a physical object. Conceptually they are very different.

ekhtsasy said...



شركة شراء اثاث مستعمل بالرياض
حقين شراء اثاث مستعمل بالرياض
محلات شراء اثاث مستعمل بالرياض
شركة كشف تسربات بالرياض
كشف تسربات المياه
كشف تسربات المياه بالرياض

Esraa Abbas said...

http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-12.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-11.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-25.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-10.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-9.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-8.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-7.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-6.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-5.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-4.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-3.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies-2.html
http://www.prokr.net/2016/09/tanks-cleaning-companies.html